On the Wrongheadedness of DH Theorists

Focusing on Veijola's contribution to my original DH post:

Both monographs assumed the correctness of Dietrich’s approach to the DH. Like Dietrich, Veijola used literary-critical arguments to partition the passages he treated between the three redactors, DtrG, DtrP, and DtrN. In Veijola’s view, DtrG had a positive perspective on the monarchy and was responsible for the doctrine in the DH concerning the permanence of the Davidic dynasty. DtrN, in contrast, viewed the monarchy negatively. While David himself was judged by DtrN to be a model king because of his fidelity to Yahweh’s law, the institution of kingship was the product of human sin and was damned by DtrN on narrow, legalistic grounds.

Not possible.  David failed to follow Yahweh's law at every turn.  He committed adultery with Bathsheba.  He murdered Uriah.  He ignored the laws requiring him to bring his son Absalom to justice for the murder of his brother (and in so doing doomed many others to death).  He never learned the Law. Etc.

Pretty much everything in David's reign as king is an example of what NOT to do according to Yahweh's law.  Veijola's filters were pretty thick . . .